One More Song the Radio Won't Like

There’s an immense amount of frustration with the Democratic Party on BlueSky, many of the people I follow amplify that, and there are certainly a lot of performative centrist elected Dems. As people look to goad the party into action, and move it leftward, the possibility of primaries comes up. I wanted to start with post that looks at some of the facts about, and concerns over, primaries. Here are the key points:

1. Primaries require an asymmetry of passion.

2. The “limited resources” argument often deployed against primaries is wrong and also imagines some kind of central resource allocator that doesn’t exist.

3. Primaries don’t require huge monetary resources, though Citizens United allows huge spending in primaries.

4. If primary challenges are truly organic, a lot of the concerns that are raised about targets go away, as well as concerns about negative campaign messages.

5. There are a lot of scaredy cats holding office in the Democratic Party. Primary challenges are a great way to scare them in the right direction.

(1) Asymmetric Passion. Reader S sent this video about conspiracy theories, and it’s worth a watch to get the speaker’s take on that topic. The speaker, Renee DiResta, also mentions the “asymmetry of passion” between advocates of conspiracy theories (specifically anti-vaxxers) and people whose only interest in vaccinations is to make sure their family’s are up to date. The anti-vaxxers are a small, vocal minority but their passion has made them extremely successful.

Primaries are an example of a situation where an asymmetry of passion is required — unless the incumbent is grossly criminal or totally asleep at the switch, most of those eligible to vote in the primary won’t bother, and those who do will vote for the incumbent out of habit. A passionate, engaged, vocal minority must work hard on a primary challenge if it can be successful.

(2) Limited Resources. If you accept that an asymmetry of passion is required for a primary, they you should also accept that the “limited resources” argument that is often deployed against primaries is false. The argument goes something like: “every seat is precious, and we hardly have enough time, money or energy to win those seats, so a primary against someone who we know has won the seat fritters away money and energy that can be used in the general election.” It’s kind of a zero-sum argument positing that the pie is only so big, a primary takes a slice out of the pie, so there’s less pie left for later.

That argument is true if there isn’t a passionate minority dedicated to supporting the primary opponent. But, if such a minority exists, as far as I’m concerned, the pie has grown bigger. The US is a rich country, and many of us have a lot of leisure time that we can devote to political action, but we do other things. If people who otherwise wouldn’t do much political volunteering are energized and devote their time to a vigorous primary campaign, then we’ve grown our party. If the people who would normally knock on doors for the incumbent are tired of him or her, and choose to knock on doors for the challenger in the primary, they’re probably going to redouble their efforts to get the challenger over the hump in the general.

In other words, the energy of our supporters is not a finite resource if we assume that we can grow the number of supporters, and more fully energize existing supporters.

The anti-primary arguments are also often made from the perspective of the entire country. “We” don’t have the resources to fight all these primaries if “we” are going to win in the general. Well, that’s the wrong perspective. The national party should stay the hell out of primaries. They should withhold money for the general until the primary is over, then give it to the winner. In cases where they haven’t, like Cuellar, it’s been a disaster. There’s no central scrutinizer for primaries, nor should there be.

(3) Money. We’ve had some massive spending in primaries during the last cycle: AIPAC, crypto and others spent over $10 million to beat Cori Bush in her primary. The most money ever spent in a primary was in Jamaal Bowman’s, close to $20 million.

That kind of money is scary, and it’s meant to scare Democrats. I’m not going to piss on your shoes and tell you it’s raining: post-Citizens United primaries can bring out the big money guns, and those guns mostly work for the incumbent or the challenger if some conservative groups hate the incumbent.

That said, there is so much free media that can be had in a primary. A well-organized, vocal and passionate minority can organize via social media, rallies, bake sales and other events. Most Congressional districts are the size of a mid-sized city, some of them are even smaller, so these events can be dotted around the district. The real danger is a primary winner with no money for the general. I don’t know what to do about that one, but I also recognize that the number of truly competitive districts in the House number in the dozens.

I’m also a huge skeptic about the effectiveness of big-money carpet-bombing media campaigns in elections. I don’t have any solid evidence for my belief other than what the behavior of myself, family and friends: we are ad-blind on the Internet, most of use don’t see many ads on TV, and we’re far more likely to be influenced by someone we know than an ad.

(4) Targets. When someone takes to the Internet to advocate primary challenges for everyone, there are often some (good) counterexamples that come up. Let’s use Marcy Kaptur as an example. She came up in the comments about her vote to censure Al Green. As Kay pointed out, she’s a unicorn: no other Democrat could win that district, and when she’s out, that district will be red for the foreseeable future.

My take on a primary for Kaptur, or anyone else for that matter, is that finding an organic primary challenger, someone has the fight in their gut to work for a year in what could ultimately be a costly failure, is tough. Maybe somebody will try to primary Kaptur, but if Kaptur is loved by some in the district, and accepted by others who think that she’s the best Democrats can do, that primary challenge is going nowhere.

The difference between shit talking about a primary challenge and a real primary challenge is a candidate, a core group of passionate supporters who believe in that candidate, a district that’s open to a challenge, and hard, hard work. There’s no substitute, and anyone who’s ever worked on a campaign knows it.

Similarly, if you’re worried that the negative messaging that the challenger will use against the incumbent will spoil the incumbent’s chances even if he or she wins, perhaps. But these primaries will be from the left, and I have to believe the main message will be: “I will actually do something.” Voters of all stripes like action, and Republicans aren’t going to be moved by messaging saying that the incumbent wasn’t strong enough on trans rights, for example

(5) Scaredy Cats. This one is pretty self-explanatory. If you’re an elected Democrat who’s not speaking out, loudly, about the coup in progress, you’re afraid of something. It might be alienating donors, or pissing off the Republicans who crossed over to vote for you, or fear of leadership withholding PAC money if you fall out of line. Ultimately, these cats are afraid of losing their seat.

If a good candidate, with a solid group of supporters, declares a primary challenge early, these scaredy cats will have something to truly be scared of. Most likely, they’ll double down on fundraising and moving to the center, because that’s what leadership and consultants will tell them to do. But maybe not. Perhaps they can be scared into speaking out, being responsive at town halls, making sure their staff answers the phone, doing more constituent service and all the other things that they may have neglected.

My conclusion: I’ve thought about all the reasons that usually get trotted out to oppose primaries, and I can’t think of one that moves me to say a lot of discouraging words about primary challengers in the Democratic Party in 2026. So, if you want to primary an incumbent, show us what you’ve got.